On the other hand the term extension point sounds generic and appears to accept anything the system operates on, like tasks, types, targets, dependencies etc. In this case we're only talking about targets. I think a more explicit term that has the word target in it would work better.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Dec 20, 2009, at 11:10 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > >> On 2009-12-19, Gilles Scokart <gscok...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> But still I would take the risk to turn this thread into a brainstorming >>> : >> >> absolutely. >> >>> What about extension-point ? >> >> Sounds good. > > I don't think I weighed in on "extension-point" yet, but I like it as well. > It's very direct as to its meaning and yet doesn't make assumptions about > the buildfile's structure the way e.g. "phase" does. > > -Matt > >> >> Stefan >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
